rr3fandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:RR3 Wiki:Update Gold Requirements/@comment-27170954-20180930211632/@comment-27170954-20181001211813
OK, Great. Here is what I would do to make these better – or just better in my estimation First off, I would organize the table for an update in three groups – one for new cars, one for flashbacks (including LTS for existing cars), and one for new series for added for existing cars where there is not a flashback. Secondly, I am not a fan of using the absolute lowest cost for SEs. I think it is more appropriate to use the typical GC cost that most players will have to spend. Since this is still not 100% objective, I might even suggest that recommended PR be treated as required PR for the purposes of these tables. Lower costs could be highlighted in the notes. Rather than saying “most will need more” say “some have earned for less.” This would paint a more realistic picture of the update costs. This will only impact the “garage” column. The 100% number (ignoring possible future sales) is nit impacted by this change. I would specifically state in the page notes at the beginning if the “100%” and “Total” columns mean 100% series and 100% garage or just 100% series. Based on the numbers currently in the tables (at lease since 6.3) it seems that “100%” does not include 100% garage, but “total” does. For the calculation of the “100%” column, my interpretation is that it is 100% series completion, but NOT 100% garage. If this is true, I would explicitly say so in the notes at the beginning of the page. The Total calculation should include the series rewards. For example, in the 6.5 table the 600LT has a buy cost of 600, an upgrade cost of 666, and series completion of 67. The total cost to a player that misses the special event is 1,199, not 1,266. (BUY + Upgrade – Series). I would include this formula like is done for garage and 100% For these new series where there are multiple cars, but only 1 is required for series completion – the series completions should be assigned to the strategically recommended lowest cost car. For example, the Porsche 911 GT1-98 in the 1998 GTE series. For Supercars 2018, all cost the same so the Holden is chosen at random – I don’t seen any better way. The other cars should be treated differently in the tables. Right now, several cars show negative values for 100%. Look at the 2018 Altima and Falcon Supercars and the Nissan R390 GT1. If the 100% column is not intended to include 100% garage, then the 100% value for these cars should be 0. If it does include 100% garage, then the 100% value should be the same as the garage value. For these cars, the total column should be 0 if that is not meant represent 100% series or the buy value if total includes 100% garage. Lastly, for new series where there is no repeat opportunity to win the car(s), the car with the optimal GC strategy should be in these tables. For example - right now, the 6.5 table shows the NISMO for the 2015 Prototypes series. The optimal GC strategy is the Audi so I would put this car in the table. here is an example of what the numbers should be for 6.5 - this table assumes 100% and total include 100% garage and 100% series. just an assumption for my personal table. The XE SV Project 8 is difficult to handle. I'm not sure how to handle this situation. Total column should probably be 0.